Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

MueR

Administrators
  • Content Count

    788
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Posts posted by MueR


  1. 38 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

    nice addition in red, not reality... well unless you belief Adam Schiffs lip read version...  but clearly showing the jade by its inclusion. 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XDCKRpLk4E

    Right. Now also watch the Democratic counsel's questioning.

    But yes really, Trump illegally held funds approved by Congress. Whatever the reason might have been, it was an illegal hold. He does not have that power.

    38 minutes ago, LasraelLarson said:

    completely ignoring the prosecutors investigation of Burisma, or the glaringly obvious nepotism, in Joe's son receiving a position with sizable compensation.

    remind me again what Biden Juniors experience was with an energy exploration/production holding company?

    or what the reason was for dismissing the prosecutor as condition to receiving aid?

    Not ignoring the investigation into Bursima, which was opened by a previous prosecutor general in the Ukraine. Shokin (the one that was dismissed after pressure from the US, EU and various financial institutions) however let that investigation die off. He was accused by many, both internally in the Ukraine and abroad, of protecting big business interests and the political elite, a theme common in former Soviet countries. That is why he was dismissed.

    As for Hunter Biden's qualifications to be on the board of a gas company... He's a lawyer, so in terms of expertise in the day to day business of an oil/gas company he has no qualifications. However, that's not what a board of directors is for. They are there to oversee the daily management, the CEO, the CFO, the COO. Look at any big corporation in the world, you'll see lawyers, politicians, former government officials. Yes, they are recruited for status. A former treasury secretary here, a former senator there, a public figure here, someone related to a public figure (or even carrying the same name) there. It's a PR thing. They need to be just smart enough to not dive the company off a cliff, the rest is status. But hey, if you think that there was corruption there, by all means, investigate. Have the Senate or House investigate. Have Ukraine investigate. Whataboutism however is no defense against Trump's actions. Next the Trump team is going to bring up Hillary's emails in the proceedings again even though that has been debunked about 5 times now by various branches of government.. I mean jeesh.. Stick to the facts please. Investigate Hunter Biden and Joe Biden all you want. Call them as witnesses if you want. Just not in the impeachment trial, because that is not, will not ever be, about any of the Bidens.

    Nepotism is not something that can even remotely be brought up in defense of Trump (and "yeah but look what that other person did" is NEVER a valid legal defense). For pete's sake, he rammed through security clearances for the only woman he ever loved (Ivanka), not to mention Jared, who was blackballed by several security clearances. I mean really, if you want to bring up Hunter Biden's qualifications for being on the board of a company, can we then also discuss a failed real estate heir's qualifications to "fix the Middle East", "reform the criminal justice system", "make a trade deal with China" and let's not forget "build the wall". I mean really... The Israel/Palestine conflict is something that's been dragging on for decades, with people deeply involved and knowledgable have spent decades on trying to broker some form of peace, and you expect Ivanka's toyboy with 0 knowledge of the region, 0 knowledge of foreign policy to actually get a peace agreement? Come on. 

    My personal opinion of Joe Biden: he's a bit of an oaf. A loveable oaf at that. Doesn't strike me as the type that can fix the US, so I hope he doesn't get the Democratic ticket. 


  2. 1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

    If that's the position of the libtards that want to wreck the country with a health care system and college loan forgiveness programs we can't afford, environmental regulations that are strangling our industries, and have all of it paid for by taxes that put us in the poor house, then it means we're on the right track.  Thank you for your confirmation that we're doing a good job ?

    Actually, economic studies have shown that the cost of single payer healthcare systems generally are in the negative, meaning a significant cost reduction.

    Sources:

    In general, most studies find that while a single payer healthcare system would increase taxes, it also eliminates premiums and out of pocket expenses. It transfers the burden on higher incomes from the lower incomes, which by most accounts is a good thing. Someone who's struggling with a medical problem should not have to choose between food on the table or clothing for their kids, or paying for medication to keep them alive. Again, yes, it would raise taxes for every household, but with the elimination of premiums it will reduce in a big net gain for those in the most dire need, a low gain or loss (bit of a tossup depending on state) for medium income families and yes, a bump in taxes for those with plenty of money. Boo hoo to the last category.

    1 hour ago, Almagnus1 said:

    You conveniently forgot to add "foreign policy has always been a pile of quid pro quos?", "quid pro quos aren't illegal", and "Biden did a quid pro quo to shake a Ukranian corruption investigation for his son".

    There is a difference between negotiation on equal footing between two countries and negotiation for personal gain. In the case of Trump, his "quo" was "announce a corruption investigation into a political opponent of mine or I'm illegally withholding congress approved funds". In the case of Biden, his "quo" was "The World Bank, the US and many other western countries insist that a corrupt prosecutor is removed from office or we will not offer funding". Again: Biden acted as the US government official, Trump acted as Trump. Difference.


  3.  

    8 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

    No, but @MueR belongs there too.  I'm not the one in object denial of reality with the data for impeachment.

    1: Call me retarded once more, I dare you. I've warned you before. I'm trying to discuss this without resorting to namecalling, I do not take kindly to it.

    2: I'm not in denial of anything. The reality is that Trump was impeached on two counts: obstruction of congress and abuse of power. There is ample evidence of the first, from his own mouth and certainly from his twitter thumbs. There is ample evidence of the second, though that evidence is more circumstantial. The testimony of witnesses can either destroy that charge or support it, so let's have those witnesses.


  4. 42 minutes ago, Amenhir said:

    Oh wait...  he did do that.  Then I guess it straight up doesn't matter what he does.  I hope the whole ordeal screws Trump out of reelection.  Otherwise, it will give future Presidents carte blanche to do whatever they please.  We can't have that.  He needs to be held accountable in a real way or the next guy may declare himself King.  I don't think you guys want a Democrat in the WH to pull what Trump has.  In fact, you'd be losing your collective shit.

    This. Precisely this. Trump is setting a very dangerous precedent, aided and abetted by Mitch McConnell and the rest of the GOP. The nepotism, corruption and self-dealing in the Trump admin is so rampant and egregious that it should be stopped, he should be held accountable and he should be removed from office. Same for McConnell, as he violates his oath of office as well with his antics. But I'm sure the GOP will not mind while there's a Republican in office. Wait until a Democrat does anything remotely like Trump... they will lose their collective shit so hard that the Voyager will pick up the screaming.

    I'm also getting tired of the "the dems want to overturn the election results" bla bla bla that Fox and the others in Trump's Koolaid Crew are peddling... They do realise that if Trump is convicted and removed from office, that just means that Pence will assume the presidency. Now whether that's good is a whole other discussion, but it's still a Republican presidency.


  5. On 10/29/2019 at 6:26 AM, Almagnus1 said:

    Thank you captain obvious for copying and pasting the wiki page.  Do you want a cookie?

    Right.. Obviously you don't know, since you're railing against the "illegal inquiry of the democrats".

    On 10/29/2019 at 6:26 AM, Almagnus1 said:

    And what you read matters greatly.  If it's from the US MSM, it's biased HEAVILY towards the Democrat side of things as there are litereally no objective MSM news outlets.

    Okay, what I read matters greatly. I'll take that argument. Media bias is a thing. That's why there's sites like https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/. They objectively judge sources on left/right leaning, science or pseudoscience.

    On 10/29/2019 at 6:26 AM, Almagnus1 said:

    That's great, no one gives two shits about the EU.

    So, when you disqualify my opinion because I'm European, it matters, but when I state that what the US does impacts the EU, you disqualify it? The EU is one of the biggest trade partners of the US. Get a fucking grip.

    On 10/29/2019 at 6:26 AM, Almagnus1 said:

    And that's a good thing because the rest of us have become too dependant upon China, and China is basically implementing 1984 through their social media.  I mean, given the human rights violations China just does and doesn't care about... maybe this is a good thing?

    Wake up call. China is taking over cheap labour. No amount of chest pounding Trump does will change that. Chinese workers accept much lower wages than we do, both in the US and in the EU where minimum wages are far higher. It's basic economics and you're guilty of it too. If you can buy product X for $19.99 in the US, or for $2.99 in China, you'll buy it from China. Trump's tariffs only mean it's more expensive for you to buy things manufactured with products from China (or any other country he hasn't slapped tariffs on). You do know tariffs are a tax on the consumer, not the producer right?

    On 10/29/2019 at 6:26 AM, Almagnus1 said:

    .... which has been a continual problem because our Presidential elections basically guarantee that we don't do long term planning?

    Every president before Trump has been careful to keep long standing allies as allies. While not every president has been equally kind to trade partners and countries, they haven't just shunned all of them. Trump seems to only favour those countries that have dictators or strongmen leading them, like Russia, North Korea, Saudi-Arabia or China. The last only in private though, because the Trump family seems to get an aweful lot of trademarks pushed through..

    On 10/29/2019 at 6:26 AM, Almagnus1 said:

    Maybe if you'd grow a pair (instead of hiding under the bedsheets) you'd realize that the only real bogeyman to maybe be afraid of is China... mostly because they have zero compunctions about censoring and oppressing their population.  I mean, they censored Winnie the Pooh for crying out loud.

    Actually, the only thing that benefits China is exactly what Trump is doing. Making imports from western allies even more expensive with his silly tariffs. It makes for even higher cost disparities between European and Chinese products, leading to even more business going to China (and even more businesses in the US going out of business). Their abhorrent human rights policy has absolutely zero to do with the economics, that's just deflecting.

    On 10/29/2019 at 6:26 AM, Almagnus1 said:

    Oh yes, a bunch of arm chair 

    Yes I suppose you would call it that, because I disagree strongly with your views. Your "MAGA!!!!!111oneone" ideas are just plain fucking stupid. Maybe move back to the bayou, live on a boat and stop pretending you can participate in intelligent discussion?

    • Like 2

  6. 1 minute ago, cossieuk said:

    Not just Boris' lies.  Farage had more than his fair share

    Well, yes, but I thought I would leave out the insanely crazy for just the mildly "whatever the actual fuck are you talking about?".


  7. 1 hour ago, cossieuk said:

    Dont count on this being the last extension.  The EU does not want a no deal Brexit but if that is to happen they will want to make sure that it the UKs choice and not because they would give an extension.  If the UK leaves with no deal because of the EU not giving an extension then the EU will get the blame for everything bad that happens after that point and they dont want that

    The EU does not want a Brexit. Britain doesn't want a Brexit (unless you count the gullible idiots who fell for Boris' lies).


  8. 16 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

    So with the talk of the impeachment, where is the due process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process ?

    The entire impeachment process is as much a political as a criminal investigation, and it's the complete and total lack of due process that's the problem here, NOT the charges.  However, I suspect that if due process were to actually be carried out, the charges would be found out to be hollow and vapid.

    Well, let me give you a quick course in civics and the workings of an impeachment proceeding. Yes, a European is giving you a course on civics. I've read up on it.

    The various committees in the House can investigate the president for whatever the hell they want. As you might remember, Republicans had plenty of investigations going on against Obama all the time. It's up to the Committee chair to start an investigation. Any evidence they gather, be it from documents or hearings, public or private, is to be sent to the House Judiciary Committee, as they are the only one that can bring impeachment votes to the floor. 

    If the House Judiciary Committee finds that the evidence gathered is insufficient to consider articles of impeachment, that's the end of that. For reference, see the multiple Benghazi, Iran, US native and what not investigations  the GOP launched against Obama. If they don't find sufficient evidence, Trump remains in office.

    However, if the HJC finds that the evidence is sufficient to support a full House vote, they send it to the floor. The full House will get to vote on whether or not to adopt one or more articles of impeachment. If that passes, Trump is officially impeached. Still in office, but impeached.

    The ball then gets passed to the Senate, as they are the courtroom for an impeachment trial, presided over by the Chief Justice. All evidence is brought before the Senate, witnesses get cross-examined, the whole deal you'll find on any trial. The Senate is the jury in this case, and they will vote on the outcome, guilty or not. A supermajority (2/3rd) must vote guilty if Trump is to be removed from office. If less than a supermajority votes to remove Trump from office, he's still impeached, but will remain in office until the end of his term (or second, should he win reelection).

    With the current Republican control of the Senate, that's unlikely unless some of them can actually grow a spine and objectively look at the evidence. This shouldn't be a party-line vote. This is a far more serious accusation than Bill Clintons, who only lied about getting a blowjob in the Oval. Based on the evidence (documents, quotes by Trump and his staff, testimony released so far), this is what the US Constitution defines as a high crime. This should be carefully weighed by each and every single Senator. This is not the Democrats impeaching Trump because he's a Republican, this is the House impeaching Trump because he comitted treason. It deserves their full attention.

    16 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

    But it proves the point that I know about as much as what's going on in Europe as you do about the US.

    I thought you were smart enough to pick up on that, clearly you aim to disappoint like the rest of the board....

    I can read. I read up on US politics pretty much daily. The fact that most Americans are only interested in their own country does not mean everyone else in the world is. I'm seriously interested in what happens in the US, because it has a direct impact on the EU. The current unstable buffoonery that Trump is calling "governing" is causing a very unstable world economy. His tariffs are seriously impacting industries both in the US and abroad, in a very negative way. His haphazard foreign policy makes the US a very unstable ally. That's dangerous and only benefits Russia and China.

    You should be happy that non US citizens are interested in your politics. 


  9. 7 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

    The cloak and dagger style the Democrats have adopted for impeachment is what the Republicans are miffed about... and yet, if they actually go as transparent as they should their entire impeachment sham is going to fall apart.  You don't need shadows if you have the truth, as the truth will light the way.

    There's no cloak and dagger. This is the process as per the rules that the GOP dictated in 2015. Similar to grand jury hearings, they're not open to the public. The public mind you, the GOP reps from certain committees can attend, ask questions and what not. They get as much time as any Democrat on the committee. They just lack any reasonable defense for Trump's obvious criminal actions and resort to publicity stunts such as "storming the hearing", which in itself is a criminal offense.


  10. 19 hours ago, Splay said:

    That's not interesting at all. Its an expectant of desperation. All those republicans are in a blackout because they aren't on any committee's related to the investigation. Cheerleading out of fear is all that was. The best part about the whole thing is the Sargent of Arms finally had something to do.

    Actually 12 (or 13, not sure) of them are actually on committees that would have allowed them to be there. Matt Gaetz certainly is. It's just a publicity stunt. One by which they violated security protocols and possibly are criminally liable.

    El Caudillo del Mar a Lago is becoming more unhinged by the day...


  11. 2 hours ago, Bohemond said:

    And there's really nothing subjective about abortion - it's an objectively horrific process, which is made all the clearer by the massive cognitive dissonance displayed by those who support it.

    More than anything (more even than tertiary study of anatomy & physiology ) I have found myself against abortion due to the universally weak and contradictory arguments of those in favour of it.

    Okay, first, there's three types of "abortion". The first is the morning after pill, which effectively is the regular anti-conception pill in a massive dose, designed to prevent any pregnancy from occurring after sex. While the massive dose of hormones might be not very nice for the body, I think we can all agree that's not what most "anti-abortion" people are against. Those that are, often are against it from a religious point of view I've found and I discredit views based on religion by the simple reason that your (not meaning you Bohemond, just your in the general sense) religion should not be forced upon me or anyone else, neither should your religious convictions hinder me in my daily life. Certainly not when that comes to family planning.

    The second is the medical necessity category. In these cases, it's the fetus comes out or the woman dies, or for example a child is put onto the world with severe medical defects which impact the viability of the fetus severely or have enormous negative impacts on the quality of life. Most will agree that in these cases there's some leeway. It is indeed a horrific process, these often late term abortions, but they serve a purpose.

    The third is the "regular" abortion. This is the one most "pro-life" people rail against. It's the process by which the clump of cells that has attached to the uterus is medically removed. Disregard all the horror stories about "the skull being crushed" etc, that's not the case here. Here's where the rubbish arguments such as "it's murder" come in, plus people thumping their bible. It's not murder. It's a clump of parasitic cells that feed of the host body for sustenance. There is no viability of life. So even the "sanctity of life" rubbish doesn't come in, as there is no sentient being. Unless of course we define a clump of cells a few weeks old to be a sentient being, but at that point you open up a whole other can of worms. We're talking unlawful imprisonment, guardians ad litem for any pregnant woman's fetus..

    And most importantly: it's not your choice. It's the woman's choice, which is hopefully made with the full support of the man that was involved. It's her choice. Her body that will undergo hormonal changes for months, her life that gets dramatically altered if she carries a pregnancy to term.

    Most abortion laws in the US are drawn up by old men, politicians, some of which have demonstrated a truely abhorrent understanding of the subject matter. Politicians who will take lobbyist money and even complete concept laws before they will listen to experts. If you want sensible abortion laws, ask doctors. They too will include some who's religious views will include a complete ban on abortion, but the majority of the experts in the field will not, because they know what they are talking about.


  12. Just now, Papi said:

    Even if Biden is found guilty of...something, it shouldn't be used as a shield against Trump and his wrong doings.  It seems like every time Trump fucks up, his supporters--knowing they don't have any ground to stand on--immediately pivot to, "yeah, but..."

    But nothing.  It's all deflection.  

    This. Very much this. Authoritarian tactics, the "Whataboutism". What about Benghazi, what about Hillary's emails (what about the Ivanka and Jared using private servers), etc. Deflect deflect deflect.


  13. Well, it's no secret that Trump hates Obama with a passion. He started the whole bither nonsense and he's gone out of his way to reverse everything Obama did, regardless of what it was. 

    With regards to the EPA, he's just an ignorant idiot who denies climate change and panders to his big business friends. He doesn't give a crap about coal miners, because if he did, he would subsidise plans to train them into different jobs. He cares about coal because his wealthy donors are in that sector.

    I'll agree that nuclear power is a viable alternative too. However, we should not rule out solar and wind. Solar is certainly viable and can make certain houses energy neutral or even energy negative (meaning they supply others). It depends on the location, as does wind. 

    ----

    Perhaps you should read it anyway. I think I make some fair points

    11 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

    if this is how you're opening this giant wall of text, then I don't need to read it to know that your head is clearly in the sand.

    I mean https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html starts with:

    If you're saying that the above is not criminal activity, there is little we can discuss because you are essentially saying the sky is yellow - which means I don't need to spend time reading the rest of your insane ramblings.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c-span-video-joe-biden-ukraine/

    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/oct/11/donald-trump/trump-ad-misleads-about-biden-ukraine-and-prosecut/

    https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/fact-trump-tv-ad-misleads-on-biden-and-ukraine/

    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

    So far, all there is is Donald's claims that something was corrupt. Ukraine is investigating (again), even though former prosecutors there say there's nothing wrong. If they do find he did something wrong, I'll happily admit I was wrong. Until that time, there's just no evidence. Only that Biden told Ukraine, by joint agreement with many western nations and the EU, that the prosecutor was not doing his job. This was not a Biden thing, this was a world politics thing.


  14. 23 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

    Except the problem here is that the only thing the Democrats have is a noisy defense for the Biden's criminal activities - and there's no way to impeach Trump without Trump taking out Biden.

    And one other point your empty headed "IMPEACH DER PREZ!" doesn't seem to grasp: Do you really want Mike Pence as the President?

    I think Trump has done alright.

    Then again, he hasn't turned the US into an Islamic colony, so I guess the EU has that "fault" to complain about.

    There's no criminal activity on the part of Biden, at least none that's documented with proper evidence. He, as VP, requested that a corrupt prosecutor was removed from office, that is true. He was however only the mouthpiece there, as it was a request joined by many European countries.

    Mike Pence.. no. He's worse in other respects. A creepy, homophobic, women-hating zealot. But that still does not mean that the impeachment proceedings should be halted. Trump committed an impeachable offence by using his office to (attempt to) extort the Ukrainian president into starting an investigation on Biden for his political gain. He has since committed several impeachable offences by stonewalling Congress in the execution of their legal tasks. Such behaviour should not be tolerated by any US citizen, no matter their party, as it degrades the office of president. The often asked question "how would Republicans have reacted if Barack Obama had done this" comes to mind and I think you know the answer.

    Criminal activity like extortion by a US officer or employee (18 U.S. Code § 872), refusal to comply with a lawful subpoena (2 U.S. Code § 192), coercion into political activity of an employee of the federal government (18 U.S. Code § 610), or a government official, “in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President.”  (18 U.S. Code § 595), should never be tolerated. These aren't from my bias against Trump by the way, this is actual US penal code, applied objectively to the actions of Trump, backed by the documents he himself has released (call transcripts, text messages etc).

    Europe does not want the US turned into an Islamic colony. I don't know where you got that idea, but we don't. We want normalcy again. A US President we can count on, not one who changes the direction of his administration based on what Fox News discussed in the past 15 minutes. We've been allies for decades, engaging in fair trade, cooperation on the world stage, forming a united front on many things. We've assisted the US in their wars and military actions in the Middle-East and in Africa. We just can't deal with Trump's stupid when it comes to international relations, like his trade war, or his veto in UN resolutions that would make rape a war crime (what the actual..). We want a president like Obama, Clinton, or the Bushes. Those with a level head, those that first and foremost know what they don't know and will pick experts to join their cabinet on those positions. Trump does not do that, he picks his billionaire donors and lobbyists who contributed heavily to his campaign. He picks loyalists over expertise, and that is dangerous for the US and for the world.

    20 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

    No, he's not.  He's been a far cry better than Obama did as he didn't completely screw up our health care system by demanding everyone get insurance... and then the insurance companies raised their rates and made the cheaper policies useless ($1k deductible, other stuff like that). And as much as you're going to argue that point, that's EXACTLY what happened to me after Obamacare went into effect, and why I didn't have health insurance for close to 8 years - as it was more cost effective to just take the penalty than pay for health insurance.  With the company I'm with now, even factoring the costs for some of the needed procedures, it was still the correct call as I'm still ahead financially compared to what I would have spent had I been on health insurance the entire time.  Yeah, the Canadians are going to point out that they have free insurance (but it's really not because their paying for it with their tax dollars).... yet why do so many Canadians come south of the border for access to the US health care system?1

    I will agree that the Affordable Care Act was a bit of a dud, especially now that Republican state AGs, members of congress and the supreme court have gutted the most influential parts of it along party lines. But the US healthcare system was always fucked up.

    When I compare it to my own country, the Netherlands, we are required by law to have health insurance. There's a basic package every company offers, with the medical care that is covered defined by law. The rates for this package vary between companies, but only a few euros. Additional packages are also available with all of them and a few even allow you to pick and choose exactly what additional cover you want. Children under 18 are automatically insured under your package, free of charge. Once they turn 18, they have to pay their premiums, but they are also (in 99% of cases) eligible for a return on those premiums (basically a government discount). Low income families are also eligible for this discount, with a good few paying absolutely nothing. Oh and we don't know pre-existing conditions. An insurance company is required by law to accept you and cannot charge extra for any medical history.

    If I end up in the hospital tomorrow, maybe the intensive care unit, I pay next to nothing for it. There's a yearly cap on what I have to pay myself (for things covered by insurance) you see, which is 375 euros if I'm correct. Anything above that comes out of the pocket of the insurance company. And since everyone pays their premiums, that's just fine. So in a way, our system is much better than yours. If I need medication, I can get it, insurance company pays. I don't have to weigh paying for my healthcare against paying for my home. There is a downside to it though.. waiting lists.

    This is where the US system of "if you can pay, you're getting treatment" is better. If you can afford the treatment or surgery needed, you can pretty much get it done within a few days, maybe a few weeks. That is probably also why Canadians come to the US. They can afford the treatment and they'll get it quicker. You won't see the lower income Canadians there though, they can't afford to do that. They'll wait.

    20 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

    Trump is actually doing something about illegal immigration (despite the Democrats fighting him), which is going to help out the poorer communities in the country as it makes it harder for using illegals and paying them under the table with the sword of Damocles dangling over their head of "We'll just call ICE on you" for non-compliance.  Then there's also a ton of sex-trafficking that occurs with illegal immigration... that is, unless you like to commit acts of violence against women and rape them after you pay your conscious money.  Prostitution needs to go, as it is heavily tied with sex trafficking.  Those males that support that oppressive industry need to be emasculated for their part in this oppression.

    Okay, Immigration is a problem in the US. There's 4 ways of getting into the US: family, work, luck and bad luck. Trump often claims (as do many of his defenders in Congress and on Fox News) that it's all illegal.

    Family: Trump's a hypocrite here, and completely uninformed too. He has no problem rushing his in-laws through what he calls "CHAIN MIGRATION" (the family category). For those without political pull, depending on country, it can take years or even decades to get in through family based migration. Mexican? Try waiting 30 years for your green card (if approved). Indian? Try waiting 60 years. There's limits on how many people can get a green card per country per year.

    Work: You can get into the US on a work visa. Depending on which type, that visa can last a few months to a year. Your employer has to sponsor you though and if your employer terminates your employment, you're out again. Oh and once every year you have to go back to the US embassy in your home country to extend it. You might get a green card eventually, you might not. Again, based on country it can be hit and miss. Unless of course, you have political pull and can get your model wife in on a genius visa. Wonder what warranted that, because modelling is not one of the categories for that visa. Oh and.. Trump loves this category when it comes to his hotel/resort employees, even though he isn't much bothered if they don't have one: even cheaper.

    Good luck: The lottery. People can apply for this and if approved after a thorough screening, a certain number of people (again, limited by country) can get randomly selected by a computer and they will get a green card. The limits per country are across categories though, so it's a really low chance depending on where you're from. I might get one within a few years, someone from Mexico or India has more chance of being struck by lightning, while winning the jackpot two lotteries on the same day.

    Bad luck: This is your "shit has hit the fan" category. People fleeing from natural disasters and extremely hostile surroundings and what have you. Trump has all but eliminated this category, lowering the amount of admissions for this category from 110000 per year under Obama to almost 0 (he's considering it). This is the refugee category. These are the people who need help. Those for which the words inscribed on the statue of liberty are, the ones that made America call itself the land of the free:
    "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

    20 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

    Although, Trump is far from perfect (and I imagine all of us would agree that he's an asshole), but he's a damn sight better than the cluster that HRC's presidency would have been (assuming she didn't die in office as she was looking rather sickly).  Trump's also a better candidate than Sanders (he's lost it), Biden (he's corrupt), or Warren (she's just incompetent) as the news media has decided that those three are going to be the Democratic candidate as (IMO) Yang or Gabbard would have made a better all-around candidate... but they aren't as in-bed with the media as the other three.  Trump's going to troll his way to re-electoin, as the problem with impeachment is that most of the moderate Democrats are #WalkAway ... which is going to create an opening Trump will capitalize on, especially since he loves throwing out honeypots.

    Well he sure is an asshole, and then some. And I agree that Hillary was the reason Trump won. The Dems could have put pretty much anyone but Hillary on the ballot and it would have been a landslide. Many Democratic-leaning voters and Independents stayed home because they didn't want Hillary. Many Republican voters who despised Trump did too. I doubt the last category would have turned up for Bernie, but a more moderate Dem candidate might have gotten their vote too.

    The Democratic party owes the Trump presidency to their own poor choice, with a little help of partisan gerrymandering by the Republicans.


  15. 6 hours ago, ZaklanoSrce said:

    Where the fuck is responsibility of women in your argument ?

    Can you leftist get your head out of your ass and admit that women have half of responsibility in sex like in everything else ?

    And try to calm your self-righteous autism because frankly you are just embarrassing yourself with this ravings and swearing .

    " you dare me " - lol how about you grow up .

    But ok i'm gonna say it - it's better to put child to adoption and not to abort it .

    I'm not even religious you retarded social justice warrior,just because you THINK something doesn't make it universal fact .

    And i'm not gonna take my opinions elsewhere because i have a right to say it,if you don;t like it be a good leftist and abuse your position and ban me .

    Gotta protect safe spaces right ?

    Women are very much responsible too. They should make a guy wear a condom if they can't take the pill, or maybe even if they do. There's also things like STDs. There's a reason the condom is the oldest and safest form of birth control. Your previous posts however seem to indicate that you think that if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should just take the pill. As was explained to you, not everyone can.

    Second, no it is not better to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and put it up for adoption. There's the socioeconomic reasons why it's a bad thing: the woman's life is on hold for a good half a year, meaning their education might suffer, or their career, or they simply can't afford the care they need while pregnant which in the US is hard enough with the religious right constantly threatening clinics like Planned Parenthood's. Then there's the psychological damage that can occur years down the road, for both the mother and the child. There's years of well documented studies on this subject. And I'm not even getting started on pregnancies resulting from rape or incest or the long term damages those can cause. Or on fetuses with high likelihoods of medical complications like down syndrome or severe physical defects.

    Third. Yes you have every right to say what you want, that does not however mean that I have to facilitate you on my forum. If I want to read "alt right" bullshit, I'll just read the Twitter feeds of the orange baby and his most ardent enablers in congress. I'm perfectly fine debating politics, but without "leftist" "libtard" and the likes. If you don't like that, fine, go rant elsewhere.

    52 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

    Arnold cannot be US President without an amendment to the constitution.  You need to go read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Eligibility

    Arnold shouldn't be president either. He sure is charismatic and did okay as governor. But what the US needs is someone who can fix the mess Trump is making of the economy and the political landscape, both domestic and abroad. Arnold just isn't that guy. I mean, his approval ratings weren't entirely on him, there was also the global economic crisis which made a mess of even California's economy, but he's just not the beacon of light the US needs. Then again, a chimpanzee would probably do better with the economy, social policies and foreign relations than Trump.

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...